OCCT build contains 8k files.

[KristofferC]

This seems to be ~8k include files. Feels excessive and can easily occupy a significant amount of a file quote on e.g. a cluster.

[giordano]

Feels excessive

Complain with the developers for the ridiculously large number of header files they generate?

[KristofferC]

Do we need to bundle them all was what I was wondering

[giordano]

Header files are typically need for compiling downstream packages, so in general the answer is yes? Splitting the header files in a separate artifact not used just for using the libraries has been proposed in JuliaPackaging/BinaryBuilder.jl#778

[giordano]

To elaborate a bit on my previous messages, I agree that the size of the include/ directory of OCCT_jll is unreasonably large, but I do think that's an upstream problem. I don't even know who's going to include 8k files in their package should they need to access most of the API, that's a very unpractical organisation.

I noticed that the log directory is also largish, so I was going to suggest that rebuilding the package (or a new version, if available) would have the logs in a separate tarball, but that's really a small fraction of the total number of files, so it wouldn't address the core of the problem.

On a separate note, Elliot is working on a new version of BB, which should hopefully include a solution for JuliaPackaging/BinaryBuilder.jl#778, at which point we should be able to naturally split runtime part of the package and dev-only (including the header files).